I tried following the instruction at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Debugging to debug the child. When the crash happened all I got was this:
> Program received signal SIGTERM, Terminated.
> pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_cond_wait.S:185
> 185 ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_cond_wait.S: No such file or directory.
> (gdb) [Parent 411] WARNING: No docshells for remote frames!: file ../../../dom/base/nsFrameLoader.cpp, line 511
When I tried `bt` I just got this:
> #0 pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_cond_wait.S:185
> Cannot access memory at address 0x7fff1f97f468

Turns out this is a bad interaction between e10s and Tree Style Tab. If I disable either, the problem goes away.
So, steps to reproduce:
- Create a new profile in an e10s-enabled build of Firefox.
- Install Tree Style Tab from http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xpi/nightly/treestyletab.xpi.
- Restart.
- Log into Bugzilla.
- Click on a user name in Bugzilla and then select "Profile" from the dropdown
- The content process crashes.

Summary: Content process crashes when doing "add to calendar" from an email in Gmail → Content process crashes when doing "add to calendar" from an email in Gmail with Tree Style Tab enabled

This fix introduces a regression: if javascript opens all the links in a page
$('a').each(function() { window.open($(this).attr('href')); });
those links gets nested one to each other, instead of opening all as child of the parent tab.
I reverted to the previous version and confirmed that this behavior changes with the newest release.

Jerod, you've recently marked two bugs I filed relating to add-ons as WONTFIX without any explanation: this one, and bug 1042965.
In my experience, this is not how these sorts of bugs is usually handled. Can you please explain why you did this? Thank you.

(In reply to Nicholas Nethercote [:njn] (on PTO until January 4th) from comment #12)
> Jerod, you've recently marked two bugs I filed relating to add-ons as
> WONTFIX without any explanation: this one, and bug 1042965.
>
> In my experience, this is not how these sorts of bugs is usually handled.
> Can you please explain why you did this? Thank you.
Sorry for my slow response. It was decided that with no dev response for 21 days that these bugs will be closed as WONTFIX.

> It was decided that with no dev response for 21 days that these bugs will be closed as WONTFIX.
"It was decided" -- who decided? Closing a bug like this just because there's no response is very much not the way things normally work in this Bugzilla. Unless there is evidence that the problem has been fixed, it should remain open.